Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

androidauthority.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 286 posts

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#31

Post by FireBeyond »

thisislife2 wrote: post #24
op7 wrote: post #20

I worked in the prepaid phone industry for 4 years so I have some insight on this. This is bad. The whole purpose of phones being locked for 6(now 12 at Mpcs) mo. is so that we are able to offer very decent phones to poor people who would otherwise not be able to afford the up front cost. Were talking about $200-500 phones being given away for completely FREE to new customers sold at a LOSS and we only HOPE to recove…

> people in poverty wont be able to get iPhones for $100 upfront anymore And that's good - those who are financially constrained shouldn't be getting (enticed) into debt-traps by buying a brand-new high-priced device when really cheaper alternatives are available. Note that the article points out that Verizon already unlocks all their phones after 60 days due to a previous agreement with the FCC. So this has already…

Not for nothing, but those devices are generally sold interest free.

There's no functional difference between "If you're poor, you should save $50/month for the next 2 years, and when you do that, maybe then you can get that $1200 phone", versus "You can pay $50/month for the next 2 years and get that $1200 phone now", other than bias against the "financially constrained".

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#32

Post by Marsymars »

lbourdages wrote: post #10
jalk wrote: post #2

Can't the operators just sell unlocked phones with monthly installments instead? The installment plan will then include free service for some amount of data/minutes. If the user chooses to switch operator, they are still bound by the installment contract to pay off the phone.

That is how it works in Canada now. If you cancel your contract, you have to pay the remaining balance immediately. No fees, just the remainder.

Well, kinda. Carriers can work around that by marking up the retail price so e.g. you have a $480 phone that the carrier sells for $700, or lets you buy for $20/m over a 24-month term with a promise to clear the $220 balance if you make it to the end of the term, so it's effectively a penalty if you cancel early.

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#33

Post by RHSeeger »

FireBeyond wrote: post #30
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month, compared to a plan which costs $50 less per month, and a BNPL plan attached to the carrier which costs $50 per month?

> What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month That phone is generally not given away - the only phones "given away" are generally low end. $1200 flagship phones come at the cost of a contract on the line AND a monthly payment for the device that pays for it in full.

The last 3 phones I purchased, it was a choice between

- plan + buying new phone + no contract

- plan + phone "free with plan" + increase in plan cost because of phone + 2 year contract

For one pone, the first was a clear winner. For another, it was slightly cheaper to get it with the plan (2nd option). For the last (iphone) it was the second option, but there was no increase in plan because of it.

So, the "cost" of the phone can vary a lot, and taking the time to figure it out is well worth it.

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#34

Post by RHSeeger »

happymellon wrote: post #6
486sx33 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but let’s just say you got a 1200 device and only made the first two payments… jump to another carrier and abandon the one with the finance plan. What’s the recourse for the carrier?

I bought a car, but then decided to not make the repayments. What's the recourse for the lender?

To be fair, car sellers have also started things like being able to brick your car if you're behind on payments. Or, for the up and coming ones, have the car just drive itself back to the dealer (Ford).

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#36

Post by colejohnson66 »

acdha wrote: post #9
jalk wrote: post #2

Can't the operators just sell unlocked phones with monthly installments instead? The installment plan will then include free service for some amount of data/minutes. If the user chooses to switch operator, they are still bound by the installment contract to pay off the phone.

That’s how it should work. My understanding is that the carriers (probably correctly) assume that there are more people who will buy a cool phone if they don’t think about it as a short term loan – and then keep paying the same price after the phone is paid off. If they had to say “$900 in 24 payments of $50” more people would decide they don’t need the “Pro” model and the carriers would be forced to compete with the…

I’ve even seen ones where the loan is “backwards”, and they’re getting more common - you pay full price up front and they give you statement credits each month!

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#37

Post by BenjiWiebe »

FireBeyond wrote: post #31
thisislife2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people in poverty wont be able to get iPhones for $100 upfront anymore And that's good - those who are financially constrained shouldn't be getting (enticed) into debt-traps by buying a brand-new high-priced device when really cheaper alternatives are available. Note that the article points out that Verizon already unlocks all their phones after 60 days due to a previous agreement with the FCC. So this has already…

Not for nothing, but those devices are generally sold interest free. There's no functional difference between "If you're poor, you should save $50/month for the next 2 years, and when you do that, maybe then you can get that $1200 phone", versus "You can pay $50/month for the next 2 years and get that $1200 phone now", other than bias against the "financially constrained".

What happens when the $1200 phone breaks before it's paid off? Does the carrier replace it?

I prefer buying used phones so I don't have any experience with that...except the first phone I bought... I understood from Verizon that the phone was included in the plan. Turns out I owed $300 for a dumbphone at a time in my life where $300 was a lot more than I wanted to pay for a phone.

I replaced it with a used smartphone for $20 a year later.

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#38

Post by thisislife2 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #31
thisislife2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people in poverty wont be able to get iPhones for $100 upfront anymore And that's good - those who are financially constrained shouldn't be getting (enticed) into debt-traps by buying a brand-new high-priced device when really cheaper alternatives are available. Note that the article points out that Verizon already unlocks all their phones after 60 days due to a previous agreement with the FCC. So this has already…

Not for nothing, but those devices are generally sold interest free. There's no functional difference between "If you're poor, you should save $50/month for the next 2 years, and when you do that, maybe then you can get that $1200 phone", versus "You can pay $50/month for the next 2 years and get that $1200 phone now", other than bias against the "financially constrained".

It's not "bias", but being financially prudent - when you are financially constrained, you don't need a $1200 phone nor do you need to subscribe to a $50/month plan when cheaper options are available. Depending on your budget, you can get a feature phone for around $50 or a smart phone for around $100, and opt for a prepaid plan (the cheapest of which starts from $15/month with limited data).

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#39

Post by acdha »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #36
acdha wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s how it should work. My understanding is that the carriers (probably correctly) assume that there are more people who will buy a cool phone if they don’t think about it as a short term loan – and then keep paying the same price after the phone is paid off. If they had to say “$900 in 24 payments of $50” more people would decide they don’t need the “Pro” model and the carriers would be forced to compete with the…

I’ve even seen ones where the loan is “backwards”, and they’re getting more common - you pay full price up front and they give you statement credits each month!

How did we live like animals in the dark era before such innovative financial products?

Re: FCC wants all phones unlocked in sixty days, AT&T and T-Mobile aren't so keen

#40

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

FireBeyond wrote: post #30
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month, compared to a plan which costs $50 less per month, and a BNPL plan attached to the carrier which costs $50 per month?

> What's the difference between giving away a $1200 phone in exchange for a 2-year contract which costs $50 extra per month That phone is generally not given away - the only phones "given away" are generally low end. $1200 flagship phones come at the cost of a contract on the line AND a monthly payment for the device that pays for it in full.

If the monthly payment pays for the device in full, what's the problem with a customer ending the service contract while continuing the monthly payments?

If the monthly payment doesn't pay for it in full, why not just make the monthly device payments $n more, and the cellular service payments $n less? That way you don't need to worry if the service plan is cancelled, because the device payments would still be due (or a lump sum payment would be due).

Post reply on HN